Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• eligibility_checkC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Check eligibility', implying a read operation but with no details on side effects, permissions, error conditions, or rate limits.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too brief to be informative. It does not front-load important details; it merely restates the tool's name.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With no output schema and no behavioral transparency, the description fails to explain return values, error handling, or how to properly structure the 'user_context' parameter. This is severely incomplete for an AI agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema covers only 50% of parameters descriptively: 'program_id' has an enum and description, but 'user_context' lacks any documentation in the schema or description. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the enum for program_id.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'eligibility for a program', and it distinguishes from siblings like 'explain_program' and 'get_eligibility_criteria' by focusing on the actual eligibility check rather than explanation or criteria listing.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_eligibility_criteria' or 'explain_program'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• generate_checklistC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  The description does not disclose any behavioral traits, such as what the checklist contains, whether it is tailored to the user, or potential errors. With no annotations, the description should provide more context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly expanded to include usage context, but it is not overly long.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details about the checklist format, prerequisites, or behavior, especially given sibling tools that might have overlapping purposes.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already covers both the parameter name and its enum values with a description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for 100% coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states 'Generate a step-by-step checklist for applying to a program', specifying a verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'explain_program' or 'eligibility_check', which also relate to programs.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'eligibility_check' or 'explain_program'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• get_eligibility_criteriaB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states 'get eligibility criteria' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence, front-loaded and efficient. It conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. However, it could be slightly more structured by mentioning the parameter explicitly, but overall it is concise.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no output schema, the description should explain the return format or behavior, but it does not. It also lacks information about what constitutes 'eligibility criteria' and error handling. For a simple tool, this is insufficient.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with the program_id parameter fully described (enum values, type). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Get eligibility criteria for a program' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (eligibility criteria for a program). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like eligibility_check and explain_program, which serve different purposes.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings, such as when to choose get_eligibility_criteria over eligibility_check or questions_for_professional. There are no contextual or exclusionary statements.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• questions_for_professionalB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not elaborate on behavioral aspects. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it requires authentication, or what the output entails. The description is minimal.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose. No extraneous text. However, it could be slightly expanded to include context without losing conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It lacks details about the return format (e.g., list of questions, structure) or typical use cases. While functional, it is on the verge of being under-specified.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'program_id', with a description and enum values. The tool description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Get questions to ask a professional about a program' clearly states the tool's function: it retrieves a set of questions. The tool name reinforces this purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like eligibility_check or explain_program, which serve different purposes.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_eligibility_criteria or timeline. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• explain_programA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a 'plain-language explanation' but does not describe the output format, content scope, or any behavioral traits like read-only nature. This is minimal disclosure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the simple input (single enum parameter) and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on what the explanation covers (e.g., eligibility, benefits, steps). Could provide more context for an agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100% with program_id enumerated. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema sufficiently describes the parameter.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool returns a plain-language explanation of a government program. It distinguishes from sibling tools like eligibility_check and generate_checklist by focusing on explanation rather than eligibility or actions.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies that the tool is used when a user wants an explanation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on alternatives is given.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• timelineA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, and the description only states the purpose without revealing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, return format, or any limitations. The tool is simple but could benefit from clarifying that it returns a list of dates/deadlines.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (single enum parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return value or scope (e.g., 'Returns a list of key dates with descriptions'). This gap reduces completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add extra meaning to the program_id parameter beyond what the enum and schema description already provide. The description does not explain how the parameter affects the output.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description clearly specifies the action (Get) and the resource (key dates and deadlines for a program). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like eligibility_check, explain_program, etc., which focus on other aspects.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when timeline information is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. No exclusions or context provided beyond the basic purpose.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.